When New England’s blue states make energy policy based on green politics, New Hampshire rate payers see red.
That was the message when a coalition of free-market think tanks across New England held a press conference Tuesday to discuss a new report on electricity rates and the power grid.
The study, “Alternatives to New England’s Affordability Crisis,” revealed the staggering price tag associated with the region’s current energy roadmap. As states like Massachusetts and Rhode Island push to electrify home heating and transportation sectors, demand on the grid is projected to skyrocket.
Modeling shows that winter peak demand could reach 57 gigawatts (GW) by 2050—nearly double the current winter record—as residents switch from oil- and gas-fired heating to electric heat pumps.
Isaac Orr, Vice President of Research at Always On Energy Research, explained that meeting this surge in demand solely with renewable sources would require a massive overbuild of the system to account for weather-dependent intermittency.
“Ultimately, what we found is that trying to meet this whole system demand with wind, solar, and battery storage was going to cost $815 billion,” Orr said Tuesday.
By pivoting toward reliable “clean firm” alternatives like nuclear power and natural gas, New England could save hundreds of billions of dollars while still reducing emissions—a strategy that proponents say vindicates New Hampshire’s resistance to the green mandates adopted by its neighbors.
The study contrasted this “renewable” scenario with a “happy medium” alternative that uses a 50-50 mix of nuclear and natural gas. That approach would cost approximately $196 billion through 2050, delivering a savings of roughly $619 billion compared to the renewable-only model.
The takeaway: It will take a lot of new energy generation to meet New England’s projected 2050 energy needs, and the natural gas option is $708 billion more affordable than the renewable option, and it eliminates the danger of blackouts. The nuclear option is $400 million more affordable and produces a greater reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.
“If you go with nuclear power, you’re going to be getting similar emissions reduction as wind, solar, and batteries for a fraction of the cost and without the reliability problems,” Orr noted.
Under the current renewable-heavy plans, the study projects electricity prices would rise by 126 percent. In contrast, the “Happy Medium” scenario would see a 26.5 percent increase, while a scenario relying heavily on natural gas would result in just a 13 percent increase.
For New Hampshire conservatives, the data serves as confirmation that the Granite State’s energy strategy has been the correct one all along. Unlike its neighbors, New Hampshire has not passed binding mandates to electrify heating sectors or eliminate fossil fuels by arbitrary dates.
“New Hampshire was really a political pariah in New England for pursuing a reality-based energy policy focused on reliability and affordability, rather than a fantasy-based energy policy,” said Drew Cline, President of the Josiah Bartlett Center. “Political and media leaders from around the region boasted that their policies were virtuous and New Hampshire’s were selfish and immoral. But in the last few years, we’ve started to see a shift.”
Cline pointed out that New Hampshire currently generates between 150 and 170 percent of the power it consumes, exporting the surplus to help keep the lights on in neighboring states that have shut down their own thermal power plants.
“This report… really leans into that vindication of New Hampshire for focusing on reliability and affordability,” Cline added.
The disparity between New Hampshire’s policy and the rest of the region has created tension within ISO-New England, the operator of the shared regional grid. Greg Moore, Regional Director for Americans For Prosperity, warned that if neighboring states continue to pursue policies that drive up costs for the shared system, New Hampshire might be forced to cut ties.
Moore highlighted recent legislation in Concord that tasks the Department of Energy with investigating ways for New Hampshire to potentially leave ISO-New England to protect its ratepayers.
“We’re in a strange point right now… dealing with the rest of New England. We’re in marriage counseling. But if the rest of New England continues down this pathway, we could be looking at divorce,” Moore said. “This is a case where New Hampshire rugged individualism might turn its back on the warmth of collectivism.”
The study’s release comes as voters appear increasingly weary of high energy costs. A new poll released by NHJournal and Praecones Analytica found that 60 percent of registered voters want state leaders to prioritize lower gas and electricity prices over fighting climate change.
However, the poll also found that many voters still blame utility companies, rather than government policy, for rate hikes. Panelists at the press conference acknowledged this political hurdle.
“I suspect that states that want the blame to fall on electric companies, you will see them do everything they can to obfuscate those costs,” Moore said, noting that New Hampshire has taken steps to increase transparency by listing taxes and fees on energy bills.
Paul Craney of the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance noted that in his state, the “big fish” driving regional costs—politicians are finding it harder to dodge accountability.
“Governor Healey… has proudly said she stopped pipelines. People’s bills went up, and now she says she didn’t stop pipelines,” Craney said. “Legislative leaders are going to have to explain themselves, because now we actually have some costs.”
With federal subsidies for green energy likely to face scrutiny under the incoming Trump administration, the study argues that the region’s “suicide” pact with renewables is becoming fiscally impossible.
“What was already a grossly expensive and hard-to-achieve set of laws has now become impossible,” said Mike Stenhouse of the Rhode Island Center for Freedom and Prosperity.
